cmc4214 Loc: S.W. Pennsylvania

Or a fence, or a bridge, or a river, or a busy street, the list is endless.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Let me put this into perspective. Zooms are very convenient since we have several focal lengths in one lens. A zoom can make a difference to record an image when changing primes can miss the opportunity.
Modern zooms are considerably sharper than they were only 15 years ago. You can be sure that if you buy a professional zoom the optical quality will be there.

Now, primes tend to be slightly sharper although that is not always the case. A prime tends to be smaller and I am not talking about teles and they tend also to be lighter. I am sure you know professionals use zooms very often and they do not seem to care about sharpness. A smart phone offers good quality but never the quality of a professional camera and lenses which are more versatile. When I use a zoom I usually set in it the focal length I want to use, I do not crop with my zooms.

I use often a 50, 24 and 35mm primes with my Nikons but most of the time I used them combined with a zoom. A good example is using the 24mm lens with my old 28-105 f3.5-4.5 D lens. That is usually all I need even if traveling.
As I said, modern zooms are pretty well corrected and are fine performers. In my case I use them often for a majority of my work.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Due to physical limitations, I have recently changed to a Sony RX10ii with a fixed 8x Zeiss constant F2.8 zoom. As a landscape photog, detail is important. It is as sharp as my previous Leica D-Lux with fixed F1.7 3x zoom. I don't think that I'd get more detail from a prime.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Good habit. Two things a lens won't determine are the viewpoint and the line of sight. And somebody that's really on the ball will consider using compression or extension as well. However, as noted elsewhere there's no shortage of situations that don't lend themselves to zooming with our feet.

BebuLamar

Zooming with your feet and changing focal length gives different perspective. So although I use the prime often I do not consider zooming with your feet as a solution to fixed focal length.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Composition can involve much more than just focal length, and in that context, laziness (or its opposite) is very much a side issue. I don't think we can come to any meaningful conclusions about which encourage laziness - zooms or primes.

Where experimentation is concerned, if ease of implementation is any kind of a factor I think we would have to recognise that zooms are the more conducive option. I think the conclusion we have to come to is that zoom lenses are best for encouraging experimentation.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Many time one can't zoom with feet (close quarters). Or, want to walk 100 yards to "zoom in" (or out).

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Zooming with your feet is one perspective. Using a different focal length is akin to cropping.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Then there's the telephoto compression and wide angle expansion effects...

julian.gang

I choose zoom because I'm used to walking away when needed...Julian

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I am primarily a wildlife photographer in the wetlands of Florida. My primary lenses are the Sony 600mm f4, Sony 200-600 and the Sony 100-400. I have listed them in the order of preference.
As long as I am not printing anything larger than 30X40 all three lenses listed will give me a sharp image.
Some times I need the versatility of a zoom especially if my subjects are closer to me, say 6 to 12 feet away. In this case the 600 is useless because the minimum focusing distance is about 15 feet.
I usually take two camera/lens combo's with me. My primary is the 600 f4, and on a spider holster I either carry the 100-400 or the 200-600.
Bottom line is that today's zooms are extremely sharp and in the hands of a person who knows what they are doing, they can deliver the same sharpness of a prime.
Below is an image I took of my home town park Casino in Buhl Park. It was taken with the Sony 24-105 f4 lens. I have sold this image multiple times and I even made a 40X60 print for Buhl Park. It was taken at 24mm, f11 to get the foreground and background in focus. Hand held.
So, yes, you can get great results with a zoom or prime. Primes are usually faster than zooms but again, if you are diligent, you can get great results from a zoom.
My second example is of a Spoonbill rising from Green Cay wetlands, shot with a Sony 100-400 at 247mm f5.6 1/3200 sec. iso 500. Hand held.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Zoom lenses can be very GOOD and the best can compete with primes up to about 300mm. Past 300mm it becomes more difficult for zooms to compete - especially if you are fussy and trying to SELL your images ! Many in the sports/wildlife/birding long focal length camp often need the option of using a tele-extender - which means you need the extra speed and extra-sharpness of a long prime lens. But again, like I say, below 300mm, most of these concerns go away.
.

Canisdirus

In the Sony line...there are only two zooms that can match primes.

Primes still rule.

Flickwet Loc: NEOhio

No you’re confusing that with: the finer the recording the more pedestrian the performance, audiophile rule #1.

Size is irrelevant, 8x10 film is big, much bigger than 35mm, bigger tripod, bigger camera, bigger lens, Digital FF is bigger than MFT, the difference is quite measurable if not readily visually apparent, Fast primes are larger than slow ones, yet the fast ones are generally superior. Your argument is nonsense.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Image below taken at 400mm, that is above what you state a sharp image can be rendered with a zoom. Nikon 200-400 at 400mm.